Talk:Living dinosaur

65 or 66 million years ago

The article seems to use both times for the K-P extinction event. Which is right? Darmot and gilad (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Citations missing

I've added a citations missing template at the top of the page. Most of this content is missing reliable sources, and has apparently been missing them for some time. This article could be useful, if most any of the content was verifiable. Please help improve if you can. Jess ^talk _cs 17:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

New entry---agree or disagree

Shouldn't Nguma-monene be on this list? Yes, I know it's technically a lizard, but its description is tantilizingly close to Spinosaurus (almost the right country too). Maybe some other crypto-fanatics can comply---Crimsonraptor (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally it sounds more like a Dimetrodon because that actually looks like a lizard, the Nguma Monene is described as a Quadruped and not a Biped like Spinosaurus and relatives were. if it is indeed a Spinosaur it sounds more like the fictional Avarusaurus from the 2005 remake of King kong.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked over it for myself, and i say that the Nguma-monene should be dismissed as a hoax. its said to be 195 feet long! yes, they are saying its a predator bigger than Argentinosaurus. fake.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No matter how fictitious or snakish the creature was described, it belongs to this list as long as the creationist/cryptozoology websites and sources kept claiming and calling it a dinosaur which they do.Kevinjonpalma11 (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Bias Evident

As is the etiquette of most encyclopaedias and sources that provide information on a variety of subjects from a neutral perspective, Wikipedia should be free of bias as much as it is factually possible. While I in no way advocate or support the arguments given by those who make the claims for the theory of extant dinosaurs, the way in which the arguments against it are presented show clear bias. E.g: "There are problems with the internal logic of claims about dinosaur survival." (Line 1, Paragraph 1, Arguments Against Dinosaur Survival); "However, it is not clear that any dinosaurs were ectothermic, and indeed the current scientific consensus is for high metabolic rates." (An argument against the extant dinosaur theory, in the section that is devoted to providing alleged evidence for it? Line 2, Paragraph 1, Arguments For Dinosaur Survival) While I understand that there is a probability for errors in the allegations and assertations provided by those for the claim, I am sure it would be more appropriate to present facts in a neutral light, allowing the reader to conclude based on information provided, and not from a biased perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.208.210.109 (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I myself actually do believe in the continued survival of these creatures. That video footage of Mokele-mbembe from a few years back looked pretty damn convincing to me. The article sounds a bit too doubtful about the topic, when it is debatable to some extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree, that this article approaches its subject from a way too biased perspective. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that some non-avian dinosaurs have, indeed, survived to the present-day. However, I am aware that many other people disagree with my opinion, and I respect that. However, I also feel that Wikipedia should definitely try to be as neutral as possible, and especially in articles, such as this one, that deal with controversial topics, and where different editors tend to have many very different opinions, about the subject matter, in question. Therefore, I, too, think that this article should definitely be much more neutral. SuperHero2111 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

At best living Dinosaurs are Hoaxes or Creationist Propaganda, this entire page is Mass speculation going by very skimpy information, i Believe that i can say with some confidence that there is no possibility for non-avian dinosaurs surviving into the Present, even if they did it would not be a Spinosaurus or an Undescribed Sauropod, it would probably be a Troodon or a Leptoceratops. --50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Arica Monster added without citation?

i have never heard of the Arica monster, considering the the variety of these reports it feels like that the Arica monster was added in without citation, i did not see anything referring to it in the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Is a Hoax worthy of a mention?

the Kasai rex is a proven hoax and since it no longer has a page anymore i don't think it should be mentioned.

Agreed, I've removed it and two others. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What should we do about the Weasel Words?

the page does not give an example of Cryptozoologists who say that living dinosaurs are possible. should we find sources or remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.51.9 (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Worthy of Mention?

i have finally found something about the Arica Monster, it was mentioned on a Cryptozoology show called Destination truth, but i still can't find anything else about it, leading me to think its a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there were several sightings of it in Northern Chile back in 2004. I'll try to find a newspaper article about the sightings. SuperHero2111 (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link: http://www.ufoinfo.com/news/pampaacha.shtml SuperHero2111 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

beware, Possible WikiKing.

the kasai rex was re-added, i have already removed it but be on your guard and be ready to revert things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.51.9 (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

said person who re-added the Kasai Rex was blocked 50.195.51.9 (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Cryptozoology section

Following up on discussion at Talk:Emela-ntouka#Simon_and_Schuster and Talk:Ngoubou#The Times, a look at the "cryptozoology" section on this page reveals some issues. For one, most of the citations make no mention of cryptozoology whatsoever, and the few that do are a hard fail on WP:RS (Loren Coleman, Roy Mackal). Taken together, this section appears to be a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. Additionally, since this is an obscure pseudoscience we're talking about, this also appears to be standard undue emphasis on fringe material. Remove section? (@Tronvillain:, @Jytdog:, @Justlettersandnumbers:). :bloodofox: (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(@Katolophyromai:, who has dealt with similar stuff while rewriting dragon) :bloodofox: (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like unsupported fringe, propped up with citations to related science, but without the cryptozoology/creationist section, is there really a point to the article? Seems like you could essentially just have a disambiguation page. --tronvillain (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You also might want to check out Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu. --tronvillain (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

But really, do we need much than the first paragraph of the Crypto section? It seems to say the same thing over and over. And if you add a link from something like Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia that says on page 104 what living dinosaurs are to the crypto-bunk people, you'd have all that you need.

You could merge it all into a single paragraph like:

• In cryptozoology, a "living dinosaur" is any legendary or folkloric creature that resembles the dinosaurs, which cryptozoologists allege are dinosaurs that have survived into modern times. Some creationists claim that archaeological evidence supports the existence of living dinosaurs, and that several archaeological artifacts, old writings, cave paintings and ancient folklores were based on the idea that man and dinosaurs lived beside each other. Excluding a few controversial claims, scientists agree that all non-avian dinosaurs became extinct at the K–Pg boundary or, at most, a few hundred thousand years after, in the early Paleocene. There is no evidence that any non-avian dinosaurs survived beyond the Cretaceous, and there are strong arguments against the survival of populations of large dinosaurs.

Perhaps you could add a section on something like the Tuatara which is often called a "living dinosaur", and the coelacanth, and solenodon which are also called living fossils. That would expand the article with actual science and by percentage shrink the crypto stuff. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course, there's an entire living fossil article. --tronvillain (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Then perhaps just the tuatara or enigma moth since they have certainly been called living dinosaurs and would fit the article title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Given the almost total lack of supported content not duplicated in existing articles, I thought I'd see how this looks as a disambiguation page. --tronvillain (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It could certainly be discussed before that would happen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

BRD. If you want to revert while we discuss, by all means go ahead, but I'm curious to see what you support that with. --tronvillain (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

We were talking about adding Tuatara or Enigma Moth, which can be easily sourced as "living dinosaurs" when this was suddenly disambiguated. This article has been around since 2006 so changing it into a disambiguation article seems a little drastic without discussion. In fact there was just a discussion over at Partridge Creek monster to merge that into here, because this was a much more fully done article. I was against that but they seemed to think this article had some value. As I said before, the crypto section of this is way to big and the biology section way to small. Oh, and that "see also" list... Griffons, dragons, patridge creek monsters... I have no idea why those are there at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Tuatara and Enigma moth need nothing more than the disambiguation page (when they're described as that, it is clearly used in the sense of living fossils), and the Partridge Creek monster is one of the few reports in the "See also" section actually described as a dinosaur in somewhat mainstream sources. --tronvillain (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. This is currently a textbook case of WP:SYNTH with major notability problems (WP:NOTABILITY) and a bad case of undue emphasis on an obscure fringe subculture (WP:UNDUE). It even cites Roy Mackal, as if his A Living Dinosaur?: In Search of Mokele-Mbembe isn't an obvious WP:RS hard fail. Wikipedia isn’t a directory for every obscure crackpot idea floating around on the internet, and this is deep WP:FRINGE territory. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Those are reasonable points for this article, but it has evolved as an article over 12 years so to suddenly turn it into a disambiguation article should probably have some formal discussion. I just want to make sure everyone who edits this things has a chance to weigh in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

12 years, and this was all they scraped together: a bloated disambiguation page except in name. Make some arguments. --tronvillain (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on changing "Living dinosaur" from a standard article to a disambiguation list page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Shall the article Living dinosaur be changed from a standard format article, to a disambiguation list-format article?

Note - The article has existed since 2006, starting out as more of a list-type page, but evolving into an article with prose by 2010. There were recent discussions about expansion by adding sentences on the Tuatara and Enigma moth, creatures actually called living dinosaurs in sources. Other article contents have also been discussed about merging into the Living dinosaur article. However, a couple editors have expressed a desire to change Living dinosaur into a non-article formal disambiguation list-form page with little to no prose, such as with this example.

I thought it best that more editors should have eyes and comments on what final form a 12 year-old article should take to best serve our readers. Major editors of this article and the proper WikiProjects should be informed. I felt a 12 year-old article warranted more discussion than just three or four editors when such a huge change could be taking place. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I'm thinking that there are good aspects of having some list changes as suggested in the above topic header links, but to turn it into an actual non-article disambiguation page seems a bit drastic imho, especially when it was under a current discussion on the talk page on how to make the article better. In looking at this article's history over the last 12 years, many editors have worked on the article, regular accounts and administrators alike. They have added to the prose and links and may not be aware of the potential removal of info if they don't have it on a watchlist. To me it seems better served to have both prose and lists, a little less on the crypto-side and a little more on the general biology-side. Then perhaps a list on the bottom as in the disambiguation suggestion in the RfC. I'd need to be convinced that overhauling this into a disambiguation page only is in the best interest of our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose - I don't see where this is in our readers best interests to change this into a non-article disambiguation page. Changes could certainly help, but it doesn't need to be taken to that extreme. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Age of article irrelevant. Wikipedia unfortunately hosts many fringe articles from a decade ago to this day. On this article, huge amount of undue emphasis on fringe topics (cryptozoology; WP:UNDUE). Section on cryptozoology total WP:SYNTH, cites a fringe author that fails WP:RS, most references there make no mention of cryptozoology whatsoever. Just a total unsalvageable, wrong-headed mess, as usual with these deep fringe topics when they come under review. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, note that Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) has repeatedly edit-warred to restore this gem, which is still in the article (brought to you by http://restoringgenesis.com). ([1], [2]):bloodofox: (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Also note that Bloodofox (talk · contribs) turned this into a disambiguation article while we were discussing on the talk page about what the best course of action for this article could be. As other editors have noted many times, you are biased in any article that has anything to do with cryptids and have edit-warred continually to dismiss all aspects of the topic and related topics like "Living Dinosaur" from wikipedia. So yes, I reverted your massive change to the article (while it was under discussion) which (according to you) also contained a poor source. If all you had done was removed the poor source there wouldn't be an issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing this bizarre response is in response to your actions here. Anyway, no matter how you slice it, the poor sourcing on this article is going to go — in particular the Young Earth creationist article you keep restoring, and the rest of the typical WP:SYNTH with it. Edit-war all you like, you're on the wrong side of policy here. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. You can fabricate and edit war with administrative warnings to your heart's content. You can attempt to banish every article you don't happen to agree with. But I will be there to call you on it when you get out of line here or the baloney you pump onto my talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Anything else non topic related you want to add? This isn't my forte, as I'd rather have discussions only on topic to the RfC and tried just to have your post removed to keep things smooth, but I can keep going if need be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A two year old diff (with context not even I remember) and a link to a talk page thread of you behaving, uh, not great. I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but if you want to contribute to articles on deep fringe topics, a word of advice: get real familiar with WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see you chose door number 1... "keep going." I've gotten familiar with those wiki pages lately in seeing all your attempts to remove articles. I was actually on the fence with this article while leaning keep. I thought others might change my mind if they had some reasonable compromises in their responses. What I was against was turning this 12 year old article into a disambiguation page with no discussion. I thought it deserved that at the very least. But with attempts to circumvent consensus like at List of Crptids, your deletion of Cryptid Whale article which was brought back to life when others realized what you did. Your smackdown in your attempt to redirect List of cryptids and your snowball failure in again trying to merge it with legendary creatures, I couldn't just stand by without making sure others saw what was happening. Can we stop now and go back to on topic discussions or shall I pile on and show your despise for anything that is even remotely close to this topic? To be honest I'd rather this whole section of tit4tat be deleted, but I'm not gonna be a wallflower to your nastiness towards me. I implore you once again to remove your post or at least stop. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Your use of terms like "smackdown" and "failure" imply that you're viewing these articles like some kind of contest. These articles are in a constant state of change. I'll note that I'm actually not the user who proposed turning this article into a disambiguation page, but it is one solution to the major WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE currently unchecked on the article (which you're personally responsible for repeatedly restoring). I'll again ask that you take further off-topic discussion to either my talk page or somewhere else where you can vent, like an off-site blog. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I never do anything offsite with regards to wikipedia... I like it all transparent... not even emails. If you want this off-topic discussion on your talk page you should have started it there instead of Talk:Living dinosaur. If you want to delete our conversation here and move it to your talk page so others don't have to see our posts, by all means do so... I will not stand in your way as I wanted it gone from the beginning. This is your fault alone for starting up this tit4tat. I removed it once as off topic, and you brought it right back. What do you say? Move it all to your talk page where we can continue/let it die, or do you want to keep venting here? I'd rather the former. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Nah, let it stay. I think you've said plenty. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. And ditto. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - as already pointed out, the age of the article is irrelevant. What matters is the content, and all the biology section requires is a link to birds or origin of birds, all the paleontology section requires is a link to paleocene dinosaurs, which only leaves the almost nonexistent cryptozoology/creationism section. Add a link to living fossil, and you have a far more useful page than currently exists, as seen here]. --tronvillain (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Just so the example is more evident:

Living dinosaur may refer to:

• Living fossils, extant taxons that closely resemble organisms otherwise known only from the fossil record
• Birds, the only extant clade of dinosaurs
• Paleocene dinosaurs, non-avian dinosaurs alleged to have survived into the beginning of the Paleocene epoch
• Mokele-mbembe, a legendary creature claimed by creationists and cryptozoologists to be a surviving non-avian dinosaur
• Partridge Creek monster, a purported Ceratosaurus reported in the Yukon in the early 1900s

...

Now, the original example had more entries under cryptozoology, but Emela-ntouka, Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu, Ngoubou, and Nguma-monene are essentially nonexistent articles and excellent candidates for deletion/redirect.--tronvillain (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC); edited 16:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - as it stands there are three different facets of the term covered, which does require an article rather than a list format. The cryptozoology side might want to be tuned down a little; otherwise I think this is a useful format, and there's not much to be gained from turning it into a list. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Covering three terms (four really, since it's clearly used to mean "living fossil" as well) isn't an argument for keeping it as an article - that's literally what a disambiguation page does. --tronvillain (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I prefer having a short explanatory paragraph there instead of just a link. Makes the page work as an overview rather than just a junction. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Article needs a bit of fleshing out and less emphasis on cryptozoology but it's a topic that should be here. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, in what sense does it need "fleshing out" instead of disambiguation? What would you add that isn't duplicating the existing articles? --tronvillain (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is not on the list of things I'm interested in editing. The question was support or oppose and why, not please debate this. If it's going to disambiguation it might as well be AfD because if it doesn't serve to call out cryptozoology as being demonstrably false then it serves no purpose since these things do not exist. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

RfCs aren't just votes - they frequently (if not almost always) involve discussions, and strength of arguments is a major factor in closing an RfC.--tronvillain (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, too complicated for a disam page, and there are no article titles actually using the term I think. I hope Living fossil will not be next - it should not be. No heckling, tronvillain, please. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose- I thought this kind of issue was resolved, it seems I was mistaken...(sighs) ... I am going to have to oppose this for the same reason I have opposed such actions before. This article is and has been completely FINE. It's properly sourced. and notable enough to warrant its existence in spite of claims to the contrary.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Completely FINE ... properly sourced", eh? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Abyssal (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Although I would rather argue to either delete or to restrict it to cryptozoology. In particular, I would like to see a source for "In paleontology, a living dinosaur is a dinosaur which is claimed to have survived the K–Pg extinction event". I wonder if the term actually exists in this context. If this cannot be solidly sourced, the article would be essentially reduced to cryptozoology. Birds are sometimes called living dinosaurs, but only in a very narrow context (when illustrating the evolutionary origin of birds), and thus the term merely exists to make the point that birds are dinosaurs; I'm also not sure if we can speak of a "term" here that can stand on its own. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there don't seem to be any sources to support referring to Paleocene dinosaurs as "living dinosaurs." I like the disambiguation because there are clear example of people using it as a synonym for living fossil, and it might be used by someone looking for something related to Paleocene dinosaurs and disambiguation pages don't use references. If it's going to be an article, that section might have to go. --tronvillain (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose As if I do a search for (and have in the pas)t Living dinosaur I want an overview. Now to be fair the article is not quite what I would like (not enough information, where the hell is the coelacanth for example?). But that is not reason for a disambib.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Being a fish, the coelacanth is a Living fossil and not a Living dinosaur - and that's a much better article, on a more significant topic. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It is something people might well look for as it was coexistent with them, and is sometimes called a living dinosaur. Which is why I said the article could do with expansion, with a brief section on creatures like it (such as "living fossils are often confused with living dinosaurs").Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Which is literally what a disambiguation page would do, telling you "Living dinosaur may refer to... Living fossils, extant taxons that closely resemble organisms otherwise known only from the fossil record." --tronvillain (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

An article can as well, and also include more information about its other usages.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It can, but the disambiguation page (seen in the above box) quickly tells you about the other usages and takes you to the full articles about them. --tronvillain (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Which I think is a general issue with Wikipedia. I often do not want in depth analysis written by experts (that is what books are for). I want a laymans overview for quick and nasty scenario research (for RPGs as an illustration) where I do not have to wade through rules of text to find one useful factoid. Thus I would like "the total cobblers people believe" articles, the ones real cyclopedias turn their nose up at. It is what we should be, the laymans encyclopedia. If I ask "how many days to a full moon" I do not want x-v\8t determines the X y coordinates of the sun in the ration..." I want "X days more or less".Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue that the lede of each of those articles does a better job of a "laymans overview" than anything here, with easier access. If by "living dinosaur" someone is looking for living fossil, it should be easy for them to get to that article rather than wading through this to the "See also" section. --tronvillain (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

However in grade school science classes we were taught about the term "living dinosaur" being used for rare animals whose lineages go back to the time of the dinosaurs. If I can't recall an animal's name I might look for it at this article. It seems this article might best be sort of a hybrid list/minor prose/article rather than a disambiguation only page. But I don't see anything particularly wrong with the lead here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a whole list of examples at living fossils, the far more common term. We don't need a content fork. And every animal's lineage goes back to the time of the dinosaurs. --tronvillain (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Jens Lallensack. Having never read the living dinosaurs article, I wanted to see what the all the fuss was about. It was quickly obvious that the first two short sections ("In paleontology" and "In general biology") are well-intentioned WP:SYNTHESIS placed there to pad out the article so that it isn't just about cryptozoology. There are zero sources that explicitly connect this term with paleontology: paleocene dinosaurs aren't called "living dinosaurs" in paleontology. And in biology, the term has been used as a colorful metaphor to introduce the evolutionary origin of birds, but birds are generally not referred to as "living dinosaurs". So neither of these are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "living dinosaurs". The cryptozoologists have used the term to describe their beliefs that dinosaurs may actually exist in the present day but are hiding from us. And yet, the text struggles to offer adequate reliable sources that would warrant a stand alone article on the subject. The suggested disambiguation scheme is less onerous, but a redirect to one sentence at cryptozoology would be the more encyclopedic option here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep article, but rename There seem to be enough sources to write an article on this subject and the topic appears to be notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry, but the current title of the article is overly ambiguous. What exactly is a "living dinosaur" supposed to be? Is it a dinosaur that is specifically alive now, or a dinosaur that was alive millions of years ago, but still millions of years after the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event? Furthermore, the phrase "living dinosaur" does not seem to be a term that is commonly used by real scholars of any variety. I would recommend keeping this article, but renaming it something like "Survival of dinosaurs past the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event," since I think that title would be far more specific and relevant to the article's contents than the comparatively meaningless phrase "living dinosaur." --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There's already an article on Paleocene dinosaurs, though even that is pretty thin. I suppose you could merge that with this, but that seems extreme. --tronvillain (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The current article isn't about a topic, it's about various uses of the phrase "living dinosaur", in violation of WP:NAD. It should be replaced by a disambiguation page, linking to Paleocene dinosaurs, origin of birds, tuatara, enigma moth, living fossils, and maybe the articles currently in the "See also" section. Maproom (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is needed to explain the phrase "living dinosaur" in the major meanings, and how it came into use, long before birds as dinosaurs. Otherwise, as a disambiguation page, the page could list numerous old politicians or actors called "living dinosaur" in multiple sources, which could be grounds for such inclusion, but it would be better to keep the article and note the term used in humor to refer to some old politicians, but not list every major person called a "living dinosaur" even though that usage has occurred for decades (search: living dinosaur politician" or others). Enough said. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait, where are all of these politicians and actors being described as "living dinosaurs"? A search for "living dinosaur"+politician turned up one on the first five pages. Besides, that's not how disambiguation pages work. --tronvillain (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. First off, this article is partly a content fork, under an incorrect name, of living fossil. I can't find a serious biological source for the use of "living dinosaur" to refer to non-dinosaur living fossils, and it certainly isn't proper biological terminology. The aspects of cryptozoology and the origin of birds can be dealt with in a single sentence each as in standard disambiguation articles. --Slashme (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support The current article is indeed a mix of topics. Thedisambiguation in the box above seems sensible to me, though I think we might want to add one specifically to Young earth creationism. "the concet in Y. e. c. that...." DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. It seems to me that more context is needed here than a dab page can usefully supply. While it is true that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we do have some articles about terms as such. In this case ther term is used in different senses, and that is a notable fact. Nor is reporting that SYNTH. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• support keep this simple. We have the experience shown in the history of this page that departing from that discipline leads to be a bunch of pseudoscientific content getting larded in here. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support The article covers unrelated concepts. As such it should be a disambiguation page. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support The science section has very little to say about the various meanings anyway. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removed references that make no mention of "living dinosaur"

I've just gone through and checked the article's references. As I suspected, most made no mention of the phrase "living dinosaur" whatsoever. Per WP:SYNTH and WP:RS, I've removed these. Per coverage in Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia (most scientific journals plainly ignore pseudoscience), I've split the article into two sections: science and pseudoscience. Whether or not this page becomes some sort of disambiguation article, we can't build anything on a foundation of synthesis and incoherence. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"Known"

It's difficult to see how adding "known" to the bird line doesn't constitute a weasel word promoting fringe views, unnecessarily implying doubt in the current state of knowledge. Yes, it's theoretically possible that another clade of dinosaurs could be discovered somewhere, but there's no good evidence even suggesting other clades might exist. Leaving out unnecessary expressions of doubt does not imply "that there can be no other existing clade of this type" - it's a given that taxonomies can be revised given new evidence. --tronvillain (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, whatever. My tolerance for debates with either side of the endless cryptozoology battle is at an all time low; it's about as fruitful as US politics. Have it your way. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Tronvillain, the implication should be obvious without the need for the word. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)